Got Milk?
Powell’s remarks harm Bolton’s chances of UN job — I’d like to know why everyone in the Republican Party is so high on this guy in the first place. What’s the appeal? Shouldn’t this job go to someone who is special, not just someone who is weird looking?
Mr Powell’s clashes with Mr Bolton at the state department became common knowledge in the first four years of the Bush presidency. Unlike Mr Powell, the administration’s sole multilateralist, Mr Bolton was a blunt sceptic over America’s participation in international treaties, and a blistering critic of the UN.
After several diplomats came forward this week alleging that Mr Bolton had insulted them for holding differing views to him, support from Republican moderates on the Senate committee wavered, and Senator George Voinovich called for a postponement in the confirmation vote, asking for more time to study the nominee’s past.
But Bolton is not just weird looking, he’s also nuts.
Plus he has a distinguished career as a loose cannon and liar.
And he likes screaming at workers and threatening people who disagree with his nutcake, phonied-up “intel” reports.
So he is kinda special, in a not-so-special kinda way.
And I think in a snakepit full of top Bush people, he glides just fine.
Now I get it! Bush is trying to put his favorite CARTOON characters in prominent positions….first Con-Rice (who resembles the Brain…as in Pinky and the…) and now, he’s going for an aged Wario….
Who next? Snidely Whiplash, Boris (and Natasha), Bluto, and/or Mutley? (Wait, there’s already a Mutley in office…)
Yea. Powell is the one that didn’t fit into the Bush group. Good for him.
I hat e defending this nominee, but:
Now is the perfect time for someone with his radical views to be sent to the UN. With the Oil for Food investigation, and Annan’s proposals for Security Council reforms, and other reforms, we need someone who will knock heads together (perhaps literally) and get this stuff passed. This is the only chance we will have for UN reform in a generation or two. Those who love the indispensable UN should want someone up there who will make it work and make it relevant again.
Also, executive branch appointments are different than judges. This is an ambassadorship (albeit an important one) that will last for 3 years max, not a lifetime appointment. The president should be able to appoint who he wants to his foreign affairs team, barring complete incompetence. A brusque or difficult management style, even bordering on assault in a couple cases, does not negate his vast experience. If Bush wants to send a nut up there, that’s his prerogative as president, and the results will be visible to all.
I do admit it might make for some great comic moments.
The United Nation’s is a weak world organization. Every time I hear about the “Food for Oil” scandal I want to puke. Yes, there is / was a problem with the program. The UN, however, does not have the finances to undertake these programs as well as might be desirable. It did the best it could under the circumstances to provide food in a dictatorship where the Americans and British would send a missile every few days. The UN DID initiate an investigation though and charges are being brought against people suspected of taking advantage of the program.
Now the list of accomplishments is far too long to list. For example, the UN has done more to prevent war and settle disputes then any other initiative in history. More people are aided by the United Nations Children’s Fund, and food programs then the US does by itself.
Bolton is not a worthy candidate to represent the UNITED STATES in the any forum. His views are so off base that he would be a radical at Pepperdine or Bob Jones Universities. Maybe that is why the Heritage Foundation likes him so much.
In short, Bolton is the embodiment of G. W. Bush in the world’s view and that is not what America should present to the world. The UN is for diplomacy, not “either you’re with us or against us” mentality. Cooperation is something that should be encouraged, not forced.
And speaking of leadership, isn’t the US still behind in its UN dues?
> The United Nation’s is a weak world organization. Every
> time I hear about the “Food for Oil” scandal I want to
> puke. Yes, there is / was a problem with the program. The
> UN, however, does not have the finances to undertake these
> programs as well as might be desirable.
The controversy went far beyond simple incompetence and inadequate resources. It went as far money laundering and bribery.
> It did the best it
> could under the circumstances to provide food in a
> dictatorship where the Americans and British would send a
> missile every few days.
Bullshit. The people in charge of the Oil for Food program were there to ensure the Iraq people got food and medical supplies. They didn’t do that and instead worked *with* the Iraqi government to line their own pockets along with those of Hussein.
> The UN DID initiate an
> investigation though and charges are being brought against
> people suspected of taking advantage of the program.
Only after we discovered the evidence after invading Iraq and forced the UN to conduct an investigation did they do anything. That Annon still has a position at the UN and was not brought up on criminal chargers speaks volumes about the “investigation” that was done.
> Now the list of accomplishments is far too long to list.
> For example, the UN has done more to prevent war and settle
> disputes then any other initiative in history. More people
> are aided by the United Nations Children’s Fund, and food
> programs then the US does by itself.
I suppose you have facts to back this statement? Remember, in your analysis to remove *all* money contributed by the US to the UN Children’s Fund itself and to include *all* US programs that overlap in mission with the UN Children’s Fund.
> In short, Bolton is the embodiment of G. W. Bush in the
> world’s view and that is not what America should present to
> the world. The UN is for diplomacy, not “either you’re with
> us or against us” mentality. Cooperation is something that
> should be encouraged, not forced.
So you’d rather have the “compromise with dictatorships in the UN” approach. You do realize a significant block of the nations in the UN are dictatorships? The “with us or against” statement was made in reference to terrorism. In this respect, Bush was right. There were a large number of counties in the world that, at the time, had no desire to help anyone, especially the US, fight terrorism. Simply threatening countries with withdrawal of US aid was enough in many cases to change their minds.
In the last fifteen to twenty years, the UN’s efficacy has been on trial. The final death nail was their inability to enforce their own sanctions against Iraq. Without the US, the UN IMO would be completely worthless.
Thomas?
You want to fight each dictatorship? How many Iraqs do you want?
If you want to do this then the rich conservitives will have to give up the HUGE tax give aways they got from our Moron Pres.
How much do you want to pay? Its all about money after all.
And for the record – we are in Iraq because Sadam insulted George’s daddy – and no one does that.